Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1852 (ALL)

SOHAN LAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-05-13

VIJAY LAKSHMI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1.8.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-IInd, Court No. 18, Jaunpur in Case No. 3441 of 2008 (State Vs. Sohan Lal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 643 of 2007, under Sections 447, 448, 326, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C., Police Station Khutahan, District Jaunpur, whereby the discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that learned Court below without applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner. Learned counsel has further submitted that Court below has also failed to consider the parallel Magisterial inquiry conducted in the present case and has not considered the material facts and documents regarding the civil suit as well as interim injunction continuing in the subject matter of present case. Learned counsel for the revisionist has next submitted that Court below has rejected the discharge application of revisionist only on the basis of statement of complainant. It has lastly been submitted that in the same incident opposite party no. 2 and other accused persons have already been summoned by learned Court below in Complaint Case No. 1004 of 2008, under Sections 147, 504, 506, 379, 427 I.P.C. by order dated 8.4.2008, therefore, the impugned order dated 1.8.2014, which has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record, be set aside. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist. The impugned order shows that the court below has discussed in detail about the prima facie evidence as available on record. At the stage of framing charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only prima facie evidence as available on record at the initial stage of framing charges is to be considered by the court concerned. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge. In Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI); 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 514, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. If on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. In Omwati v. State; AIR 2001 SC 1507 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and farfetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others; 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. In wake of the aforesaid legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the prima facie evidence available on record, which has been discussed in detail by the court below, the revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed. The revision is accordingly dismissed.